Right from the first readings I read for this course,
through to last week’s readings, I have continued to reflect on the idea of
teacher as expert; teacher as subject matter superior; specific discipline thinker.
I have waffled back and forth between thinking anyone can teach anything, to
thinking only someone with an advanced degree in math should teach math. I
think I am somewhere in the middle now, but I seem to oscillate depending on
the angle at which I explore the idea.
At the start of this course, we spent two weeks
discussing the very idea of constructivism. In the Week 3 we read an article by
Schwartz and Fischer (2003) which described graduate students in a Faculty of
Education grappling with science concepts using a constructivist approaches. My
classmate Mehjabeen Datoo, posted the following: “A deep knowledge of the discipline and of the subject matter being
taught is also pretty key and in the North American context, not all teachers
have sufficient expertise in all the subjects they teach to be able to work
with them using constructivist methods. “
Mehjabeen’s post helped me to see that I was
struggling with the concept of teacher as expert. As a response to her post, I
wrote: “ In the Internet age, there is no reason
for the teacher to be the fount of all knowledge”, I went on to explain my experience teaching a subject matter
I had no experience with, but that I managed to teach it well due to three
factors, “a) I knew how to learn, b) I
knew where to find the resources, c) I knew how to critically assess the
resources as valid. As for the content - well that can be found in a book or on
a website, it need not be in my head! This is why I get excited about the
future of schooling. Perhaps teachers become experts in how to learn and how to
teach others how to learn and no one teacher need be a content specialist.”
My classmates were quick to point
out the simplicity of my thinking, and while I remain convinced that teacher’s
do not need to have ALL knowledge, being an expert in a subject has several
advantages when using constructivist techniques.
-
Constructivist teachers role model thought processes for students.
Because different disciplines are aligned with particular and unique ways of
thinking (knowledge structures), being a subject matter expert helps role model
these discipline specific ways of knowing.
-
Constructivist lessons enable students to take ideas and concepts
in unforeseen directions, so a teacher needs to be ready to step in and
scaffold as needed. One the spot scaffolding needs a deep well of knowledge to
draw from.
-
As students are building knowledge, they may make errors in their assumptions
or theories and a subject expert is needed to spot these mistakes and are able
to gently guide students in a different direction
Upon reflection, I think there are two separate issue here.
Phillips (1995) talks about “bodies of public knowledge known as
various disciplines” when referring to the physical sciences, humanities,
social sciences and the like. The first issue revolves around this idea of a
discipline.
The second issue, where I believe I was focused on in my post, is
the information and facts that make up the body of knowledge. This is the
chemistry or physics of the physical sciences.
Perhaps, what is needed in the classroom is a discipline expert –
someone who is able to think like all those who subscribe to or belong in the larger
community that makes up the body of public knowledge. What may not be needed is
someone who knows the finer details of a particular aspect of the discipline.
For example, perhaps someone with a strong background in chemistry
but only a cursory knowledge of physics can still be an excellent constructivist
teacher of physics since he or she is familiar with the ways of knowing involved
in physics.
I think I am starting to tap into the idea of Pedagogical content
knowledge, but I need to learn more. This blog has an excellent discussion of
the concept - http://blogs.maryville.edu/shausfather/vita/content-process/
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many
Faces of Constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12
Schwartz, Marc S. & Fischer, Kurt W. (2003). Building vs.
borrowing. Liberal Education 89(3), 22-29.
No comments:
Post a Comment